Videographer Matt Orfalea (who formerly worked for the Bernie Sanders campaign) creates mashup using ONLY video clips and statements published by corporate news outlets. Orf's video illustrates that the COVID narrative kept changing dishonestly, by silently moving the goalposts, rather than by acknowledging that the previous narrative was untrue. Google/Youtube Response: This video is not "suitable." It must be demonetized.
Glenn Greenwald and Saagar Enjeti independently took deep dives to investigate the bizarre and, in fact, highly suspicious, behavior of the U.S. regarding the 2001 anthrax attacks. They discussed their conclusions together on Rumble:
Here's an excerpt of the transcript from their interview:
G. Greenwald: We've been planning the anthrax program we did last night to kind of walk through and remind people of exactly what that attack was, why it was so significant, but also the multiple mysteries embedded within it. And out of the blue, not without knowing I was working on it. You came to me and said, I've currently fallen into this anthrax rabbit hole. And as a result, I've run into a lot of the stuff that you're writing about because I wrote about it almost nonstop for two years in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Tell me what it was that kind of attracted your interest to it? Like what has made you so fascinated by this topic?When he mentioned his own anthrax episode, Glenn was referring to the previous night's show, where he connected bizarre and incriminating behavior by the U.S. in the 2001 anthrax attacks to what appears to be dangerous biological weapon experimentation by the U.S. ever since, leading up to what appears to be the U.S. misconduct related to the release of COVID in Wuhan. It is a long, detailed, gripping and convincing episode.Saagar Enjeti: Glenn, for me, it was a lab leak. I mean, at the very beginning, you know, of course, we've done our best to try and dig as deep into lab leak as possible. So, at the very beginning, we started with the Wuhan lab. So obviously we have the Wuhan lab, I think at this point is basically, I mean, I don't really know anybody who doesn't believe that it came out of there. If we can rehash that evidence at a later time, I'll […]
G. Greenwald: I'll tell you some people if you want to find out. But anybody rational does not believe that any longer.
Saagar Enjeti: Yes, there is. There is a tremendous amount, an overwhelming amount of evidence to say that Covid leaked from the Wuhan lab. Then you peel back one layer that's almost boring now at this point. And we look at the U.S. funding. We have Dr. Fauci, Dr. Peter Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance. All of that is now well-established. I wanted to keep going back even more layers. So, then we go to the overall arc of gain-of-function research. Then, I decided to go even higher than gain-of-function research to say, where the hell did this vast amount of money being pumped through the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, even come from? That leads me to the 2007 Review of the Government Accountability Office about specifically the bioterrorism initiatives that were sparked by the anthrax attacks of 2001. And what I realized, Glenn, is that the 2001 anthrax attacks opened the door and changed completely the way that we handled dangers not just here in the United States, but all across the world. And our dirty fingers are all over gain of function, research opportunities all over funding people who are going into caves, which no human being ever would be in in the first place, getting covered in bat poop and then getting bitten, going back into a lab and being like, “Hey, we found this one thing and tried to develop a vaccine for it just in case that somebody ever does go into that.” And instead, we now have actually vast and ample amounts of evidence. Not only did COVID leak from the Wuhan lab but actually it looks like Ebola. There is a very good case to say that the Ebola outbreak in the mid-2010s also came from the lab. Then you go back even further. And so really what I became interested in is your reporting specifically around the anthrax attacks, because the more I realized that it all started with anthrax and the fact was that everyone was ignoring me on it, I was like, oh, well, they solved that one, right? No, actually, not at all. The FBI accused the wrong man, the person that they pinned it on. They just blamed it on him with no due process at this point. I think you have to be an idiot to think that Bruce Ivins was the person responsible for the anthrax. I mean, many of the people who were even involved in the investigation would tell you that. And so actually, I was saying I can't believe Glenn has been so right for so long.
[More . . . ]
Excerpt of Megyn Kelly's interview of the three hosts of The Fifth Column Podcast (which I follow and recommend). Two topics here: A) The refusal of some key advocates for social justice" to debate their views publicly, and B) Acknowledgment that several of the participants to this discussion initially fell for the Trump-Russia propaganda.
The Confirmation Bias is strong. Almost none of the millions of people who spent years convincing themselves that Donald Trump colluded with Russia is willing to read the 12-page Executive Summary of the Durham Report, which methodically dismantles their cherished world view. They would much rather ingest the soft-pedaled versions of the report offered by corporate media outlets that lavished themselves with awards for for engaging in journalism malpractice. I don't actually know all these millions of people, of course, but based on several conversations I've recently had with "True-Blue" people, they want to continue believing what they believe.
Those of us who have been following independent media (e.g., Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi) are not surprised by the conclusions of the 316-page Durham Report.
One more thing . . . at Racket News, Susan Schmidt summarizes the main points of the Durham Report. Here article is titled: "Eight Takeaways From the Durham Report" Perhaps the overall headline could have been "U.S. Intelligence Agencies Attempt to Tip the Election in Favor of Hillary Clinton, Whose Campaign Paid for and Received False Intelligence to Lead the Way." Something like that. Here are Schmidt's eight takeaways:
1. There was no valid predicate for the investigation, and the FBI knew it.
2. “There’s nothing to this, but we have to run it to ground.”
3. “It’s thin”; “There’s nothing to this.”
4. The Trump campaign investigation was premised on “raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence,” and U.S. intel agencies possessed no “actual evidence of collusion” when the probe began
5. Sensational stories published in the New York Times in February and March 2017 claiming Trump associates were in contact with Russian intelligence agents were false.
6. FBI Director James Comey pushed heavily for an investigation of Carter Page, starting in April 2016 when Page was a government witness in an espionage investigation of Russian diplomats in New York.
7. At the direction of the FBI, confidential human source Stefan Halper recorded lengthy conversations with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, in which each denied the campaign had any involvement with Russian officials.
8. Durham was highly critical of the FBI’s “startling and inexplicable failure” to investigate the so-called “Clinton Intelligence Plan.”
[More . . . ]
The conclusions of the Durham report are not surprising to those of us who follow independent new media. For years, we've seen shoddy story after shoddy story revealing that the driving motivation of the two dominant flavors of corporate media is to serve as the PR Departments of the two dominant political parties. It has also long been clear (e.g., from the Twitter Files and the coverup regarding Hunter Biden's laptop) that the FBI & CIA are partisan organizations. Many people I know don't mind being played. They would rather think about short-term results than the long term damage that continues to be inflicted on American institutions. No matter who you prefer to be president, these revelations should be immensely disturbing.
From the National Review: "This was one of the dirtiest political tricks in American history. The damage it has done to American trust in the FBI and our intelligence agencies is incalculable."
Here is another straight-forward account from The National Review, a conservative leaning media outlet that vigorously opposed Donald Trump: "FBI Lacked ‘Any Actual Evidence of Collusion’ between Trump Campaign, Russia When Crossfire Hurricane Launched, Durham Finds":
The Department of Justice and the FBI did not have “any actual evidence of collusion” between Russian officials and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, and began their Crossfire Hurricane probe of Trump’s campaign based on “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence,” according to a report released on Monday by special prosecutor John Durham.
Durham scolded federal law enforcement and counter-intelligence officials for failing to “uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law” as part of their investigation.
He wrote that at least one FBI agent criminally fabricated language in an email that was used to obtain a FISA surveillance order. And he accused FBI leaders of displaying a “serious lack of analytical rigor” and relying significantly on “investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump’s political opponents,” referring to staffers and allies of Hillary Clinton, then the Democratic presidential nominee, whose campaign funded the Steele dossier through its law firm Perkins Coie.
